" If the village of Elmwood Place wants to stick their hands in someone's pocket and take out $105, they better darn well provide a system for that individual to fight it … and clearly based on the decision by Judge Ruehlman they didn't do that," said Attorney Mike Allen.

Ohio law requires that photo monitoring devices used to enforce traffic laws cannot be used in a village unless a sign is erected there to warn motorists.

Ruehlman argued that drivers had no opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, and he noted that the devices are calibrated only once a year – and not by police, but instead by Optotraffic, the corporation that owns the device and has a financial stake in the setup.

"Elmwood Place is engaged in nothing more than a high-tech game of 3-card Monte," Ruehlman said. "It is a scam that the motorists can't win."

The village installed the cameras in September, resulting in some 6,600 speeding citations at $105 each in the first month.

Ruehlman said in his ruling that Optotraffic had received about $500,000 from the village's traffic enforcement at the time of a Jan. 9 court hearing.

Elmwood Place council members met to talk about budgets, but one councilman who has been up front about the issue said the last thing the village wants to do is return money collected from using the cameras.

"Oh, it would be a disaster for us right now," said Jerald Robertson. "Some of that money was spent last year, and we'd be bankrupt."

"As of the date of the hearing, it was $1.6 million (money collected), and I guess it's closer to $2 million now. If there's a way to get that money back for those people, we're going to do it."

The judge also noted in his ruling that vehicle owners who receive a fine must provide the name and address of the offending driver if was not, in fact, them. Ruehlman said the ordinance would violate the state's spousal immunity statute if the offending driver was the husband or wife of the vehicle owner.

Ruehlman found the village's ordinance to be invalid and unenforceable, and the judge granted a permanent injunction against the operation of the traffic cameras in Elmwood Place.

The judge said the law required plaintiffs to post a bond to cover potential damages sustained by the defendants before an injunction could be implemented.

But he noted that Elmwood Place has argued that the ordinance was not intended to raise revenue, but to instead increase compliance with speed limits, so he set the surety bond at $1.

Copyright 2013 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.